TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein an amount of Rs. 7,00,472/- u/s 14 A read wit Rule 8D of the I.T Rules and another addition of Rs. 26,08,661/- since there was difference between 26AS and books of account. As against the assessment order dated 31/12/2014, the assessee has challenged the same before CIT(A) wherein the CIT(A) has deleted disallowance made u/s 14A of the act. A separate penalty proceedings has been initiated against the assessee, the assessee has submitted following explanation in the assessment proceedings. "it may be noted here that Assessee Company had not concealed any fact/suppressed any income and voluntarily taken difference of interest income for Rs,26,08,661/ as FDR Interest income in the next financial year i.e. FY2012-13 and offered the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essed has either concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. ltd. [2012 -ITRVSC- 244] has held that there would be no s, 271(1)(c) penalty for a bonafide/inadvertent/human error. ............................................" The above explanation given by the assessee found not satisfactory and passed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax has passed order of penalty by imposing penalty at 100% which is 8,46,380/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the penalty dated 27/03/2017, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 15/11/2018 dismissed the appeal by confirming the action of the A.O in levying the penalty. 4. Aggrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A has incorrectly decided the said issue on basis of extraneous reasoning. 6. That off the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 8,46,380/- u/s 271(l)(c) where assessee successfully discharged its onus of probable explanation by proving bonafide conduct. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee Sh. Laxmi Narayan, vehemently submitted that the assessee has not made any concealment to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, further submitted that the addition made by the Ld. A.O on interest of FDR amounting to Rs. 26,08,661/- has been agreeing by the assessee, without defending the same. Further submitted that the assessee has already paid tax o....